Cargando…
Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study
BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers amo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32390592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18117 |
_version_ | 1783566271630016512 |
---|---|
author | Krusche, Martin Klemm, Philipp Grahammer, Manuel Mucke, Johanna Vossen, Diana Kleyer, Arnd Sewerin, Philipp Knitza, Johannes |
author_facet | Krusche, Martin Klemm, Philipp Grahammer, Manuel Mucke, Johanna Vossen, Diana Kleyer, Arnd Sewerin, Philipp Knitza, Johannes |
author_sort | Krusche, Martin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. METHODS: Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. RESULTS: A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7400039 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74000392020-08-17 Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study Krusche, Martin Klemm, Philipp Grahammer, Manuel Mucke, Johanna Vossen, Diana Kleyer, Arnd Sewerin, Philipp Knitza, Johannes JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Original Paper BACKGROUND: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. METHODS: Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. RESULTS: A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice. JMIR Publications 2020-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7400039/ /pubmed/32390592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18117 Text en ©Martin Krusche, Philipp Klemm, Manuel Grahammer, Johanna Mucke, Diana Vossen, Arnd Kleyer, Philipp Sewerin, Johannes Knitza. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 20.07.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://mhealth.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Krusche, Martin Klemm, Philipp Grahammer, Manuel Mucke, Johanna Vossen, Diana Kleyer, Arnd Sewerin, Philipp Knitza, Johannes Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title | Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title_full | Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title_fullStr | Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title_short | Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study |
title_sort | acceptance, usage, and barriers of electronic patient-reported outcomes among german rheumatologists: survey study |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400039/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32390592 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/18117 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kruschemartin acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT klemmphilipp acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT grahammermanuel acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT muckejohanna acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT vossendiana acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT kleyerarnd acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT sewerinphilipp acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy AT knitzajohannes acceptanceusageandbarriersofelectronicpatientreportedoutcomesamonggermanrheumatologistssurveystudy |